w
w
ap
eP
m
e
tr
.X
w
CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS
om
.c
s
er
Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education
MARK SCHEME for the May/June 2015 series
9698 PSYCHOLOGY
9698/21
Paper 2 (Core Studies 2), maximum raw mark 70
This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of
the examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not
indicate the details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began,
which would have considered the acceptability of alternative answers.
Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the question paper and the Principal Examiner
Report for Teachers.
Cambridge will not enter into discussions about these mark schemes.
Cambridge is publishing the mark schemes for the May/June 2015 series for most
Cambridge IGCSE®, Cambridge International A and AS Level components and some
Cambridge O Level components.
® IGCSE is the registered trademark of Cambridge International Examinations.
Page 2
Mark Scheme
Cambridge IGCSE – May/June 2015
Syllabus
9698
Paper
21
Section A
1
Haney, Banks and Zimbardo conducted a simulation study on social roles during which
participants were placed in a mock prison environment.
(a) Describe different types of observations.
[5]
Any five correct points, 1 mark for each point up to a maximum of five points.
Marks can be awarded for identifying features of observations but NOT strengths and
weaknesses.
No answer or incorrect answer, 0
Indicative content:
The different types of observations plus definitions
e.g. participant/non-participant
naturalistic/controlled
disclosed/undisclosed or covert/overt (do not award these twice – you can award disclosed +
definition and then undisclosed + definition but do not then award covert/overt)
time/event sampling
structured/unstructured
Examples of observations – maximum 1 mark and must be a clear description of an
observation from a study not just, e.g. Zimbardo
Award a maximum of 2 marks just for terminology without any definitions.
Any other appropriate point
© Cambridge International Examinations 2015
Page 3
Mark Scheme
Cambridge IGCSE – May/June 2015
Syllabus
9698
Paper
21
(b) Design an alternative way to investigate social roles using the observational method
and describe how it could be conducted.
[10]
Alternative does not need to take place in a prison.
Candidates should describe the who, where, when (duration), what and how.
Major omissions include the what and how. Candidates must describe what the participants
are doing or are put through during the study and how the behaviours are recorded (e.g.
behavioural checklist).
Minor omissions include who (number of participants), where and when (duration) (plus the
what and/or how is unclear can also count as a minor omission).
It is possible to achieve 9 marks with a small minor omission (e.g. sampling method).
Very unethical research must be capped at 4 marks.
Must measure social roles otherwise cap at 2.
Alternative study is incomprehensible.
0
Alternative study is muddled and impossible to conduct.
1–2
Alternative study is muddled but possible and/or there are major omissions.
3–4
Alternative study is clear with a few minor omissions.
5–6
Alternative study is described with one minor omission and in some detail.
7–8
Alternative study is described in sufficient detail to be replicable.
9–10
© Cambridge International Examinations 2015
Page 4
Mark Scheme
Cambridge IGCSE – May/June 2015
Syllabus
9698
Paper
21
(c) Evaluate this alternative way of studying social roles in methodological and ethical
terms.
[10]
Indicative content:
Candidates need to consider a number of points regarding their study. These points can be
both positive and/or negative.
Appropriate points could include a discussion about:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Difficulty in accessing a large sample of participants
Lack of generalisability
Could be unethical to do a study on someone within a prison environment
Social desirability/demand characteristics if participants know they are being studied
Difficult to compare participants as all unique
Validity of data collection technique
Reliability of data collection technique
Ecological validity
Ethics of observing participants without their consent
Observer bias
Difficulty in accessing a prison or other appropriate environment.
In order to achieve higher marks (5+) the candidate must link their points to their
investigation described in part (b).
Candidates must discuss both methodological and ethical points to achieve 7+ marks.
To be considered specific to the investigation the response must be in context for a minimum
of two separate points.
No evaluation.
0
Evaluation is muddled and weak.
1–2
Evaluation is simplistic and/or not specific to the investigation. May include one
point that is brief and specific to the investigation.
3–4
Evaluation is simplistic but specific to the investigation (may include general
evaluation). May include one very detailed point.
5–6
Evaluation is good and specific to the investigation. Two or more points. This
must include both a point on methodological as well as ethical issues.
7–8
Evaluation is detailed and directly relevant to the investigation and the
observational method. Two or more points. This must include both a point on
methodological as well as ethical issues.
9–10
© Cambridge International Examinations 2015
Page 5
2
Mark Scheme
Cambridge IGCSE – May/June 2015
Syllabus
9698
Paper
21
Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) conducted a laboratory experiment to investigate theory of
mind in adults with autism and Asperger’s syndrome.
(a) What is meant by the term ‘control’?
[2]
1 mark partial
2 marks full
Possible response:
Consistency in the study – 1 mark
Extraneous variables are eliminated – 1 mark
Where the environment/procedure is kept consistent amongst all participants – 2 marks
Extraneous variables are eliminated as the situation (or equivalent) is kept consistent for all
participants – 2 marks
(b) Describe one control from the Baron-Cohen et al. study.
[3]
1–2 marks partial
3 marks full (clearly explains why the feature is a control)
Possible response:
The eyes task – 1 mark
The 36 eyes shown to the participants where they had to judge emotion – 2 marks
The 36 eyes shown to the participants were the same for everyone and shown for a
standardised period of time – 3 marks
Examples of controls could include – IQ tests, eyes task, words used in eyes task, timing of
task, gender task given to AS/Autistic participants, control group (must be really clearly
explained why this acts as a control as these participants are considered to the norm/the
control of society in general).
© Cambridge International Examinations 2015
Page 6
Mark Scheme
Cambridge IGCSE – May/June 2015
Syllabus
9698
Paper
21
(c) Discuss the extent to which the Baron-Cohen et al. study is reductionist.
[10]
Candidates may discuss findings/features of the study by Baron-Cohen et al. that are general
and not specific to reductionism. Give a maximum of 2 marks to these candidates.
Appropriate comments could include linking reductionism to:
Simplistic nature of IQ test (does not cover all types of intelligence)
Simplistic nature of eyes task
More complicated eyes task than previous studies (e.g. Sally Anne and other eyes task
studies that had fewer eyes and fewer words to pick from)
Complex conclusion made about mind blindness on the basis of a simplistic test
Complex emotions are used as well as simple ones
Limited nature of the sample makes the study reductionist OR uses both normal and
Autistic/AS so more complex. Could be argued both ways
Any other appropriate comment
No comment on reductionism.
0
Comment on reductionism which is muddled and weak.
1–2
Comment on reductionism which is not specific to the investigation
OR consideration of reductionism which is simplistic but specific to investigation.
3–4
Consideration of reductionism which is simplistic but specific to investigation and
somewhat detailed. This could include one point.
OR Consideration of reductionism which is detailed but not specific to
investigation.
5–6
Consideration of reductionism is good but brief (2 or more points) and specific to
investigation.
OR Consideration of reductionism with one issue which is detailed and directly
relevant to the investigation and the other issue(s) is more simplistic.
7–8
Consideration of reductionism (2 or more points) which is detailed and directly
relevant to the investigation.
9–10
© Cambridge International Examinations 2015
Page 7
Mark Scheme
Cambridge IGCSE – May/June 2015
Syllabus
9698
Paper
21
(d) Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of reductionist research using the BaronCohen et al. study as an example.
[10]
Appropriate strengths and weaknesses will be varied. These could include:
Weaknesses
Lacks ecological validity as reductionist
Not a valid test of mind blindness as too simplistic
A complete picture of autism is not given
Fails to take into account other causes of behaviour
Strengths
Often simplistic studies are more reliable and standardised
Useful to use as a diagnostic tool as simple and quick
An ethical test – could be because it was so simple
Simple test for participants to complete so they should do it correctly
A short test so participants more willing to complete
Simplistic conclusions are easier to understand
Reductionist research often collects quantitative data so can compare easily
Any other appropriate point
No comment on the strengths and weaknesses of reductionist research.
0
Comment given but muddled and weak.
1–2
Consideration of at least a strength and a weakness not specific to investigation
OR
Consideration of either a strength/weakness that is specific to reductionism and
investigation.
3–4
Consideration of two or more points (at least one strength and one weakness)
which are clear and specific to investigation.
5–6
Consideration of at least two strengths and two weaknesses which are clear and
specific to investigation.
7–8
Consideration of at least two strengths and two weaknesses which are good and
directly relevant to the investigation.
9–10
© Cambridge International Examinations 2015
Page 8
Mark Scheme
Cambridge IGCSE – May/June 2015
Syllabus
9698
Paper
21
Section B
3
(a) Outline what is meant by the term ‘ecological validity’ in psychology.
[2]
1 mark partial, 2 marks full
Realism/true to life – 1 mark
How applicable a study is to everyday life – 2 marks.
Credit comments about generalisability to everyday life (but not points about generalisability
of the sample)
Using the studies from the list below, answer the questions which follow:
Nelson (children’s morals)
Demattè et al. (smells and facial attractiveness)
Schachter and Singer (emotion)
(b) Describe how one feature of each study lacks ecological validity.
[9]
Indicative content: Most likely answers (any appropriate answer receives credit):
Nelson: The stories told to the children are not realistic because they are on paper and also
very simplistic with little context given.
Another feature could include the rating scale given to the participants.
Dematte et al.: The smells and photographs are not how we experience attractiveness in
everyday life. We see people in reality rather than a photo and there is a context to the
situation we are in as well as a smell.
Schachter and Singer: Many features of this study lack ecological validity. We do not take
injections of vitamins but rather tablets of vitamins. Although this was a lie told to participants
they may not have believed it because it was unrealistic. Other features could include the
behaviour of the stooge, the self report during the anger condition, the self report given at the
end of the study.
For each study:
No answer or incorrect answer.
0
Identification of point relevant to question but not related to study, or comment
from study but no point about ecological validity from the study. The description
may be very brief or muddled.
1
Description of point about ecological validity from the study. (Comment with lack
of understanding).
A clear description that may lack some detail.
2
As above but with analysis (comment with comprehension) about ecological
validity from the study.
A clear description that is in sufficient detail (an understanding of why the feature
lacks ecological validity is given).
3
Max mark
9
© Cambridge International Examinations 2015
Page 9
Mark Scheme
Cambridge IGCSE – May/June 2015
Syllabus
9698
Paper
21
(c) What advantages may psychologists have when they make studies ecologically valid?
[9]
Emphasis on advantage. Answers supported with named (or other) studies. Each advantage
does not need a different study; can use same study.
Indicative content:
Realistic so can be applied to everyday life
Lack of demand characteristics/social desirability as participants believe in the situation
Useful research as relevant to everyday life
Observing behaviour that cannot be seen in a laboratory (e.g. behaviour at work, school,
etc.)
Can offer valid explanations of behaviour
Can be quite easy to get a large sample if the study is just using people in their everyday
environment
Or any other relevant advantage.
Marks per point up to a MAXIMUM of three points.
No answer or incorrect answer.
0
Identification of advantage.
1
Description of advantage related to ecological validity
OR a weak description of an advantage related to ecological validity and applied
to a study.
2
Description of advantage related to ecological validity and applied to the study
effectively.
3
Max mark
9
© Cambridge International Examinations 2015
Page 10
4
Mark Scheme
Cambridge IGCSE – May/June 2015
Syllabus
9698
Paper
21
(a) Outline what is meant by the term ‘ethnocentric bias’.
[2]
1 mark partial, 2 marks full.
A distortion caused by a focus on the researcher’s own culture which narrows the
appropriateness of the methods when used with participants from other cultures and causes
a lack of generalisability of the finding to other cultures.
Accept a discussion about the ethnocentric nature of psychological materials.
Where the study uses a limited group of participants and the results cannot be generalised to
the wider population – 1 mark
Where the researcher focuses on his own culture and is therefore unable to generalise his
findings to other cultures – 2 marks
Judging other cultures based on your own cultural views (1 mark), so believing that your
culture it superior to others (1 mark)
Using the studies from the list below, answer the questions which follow:
Tajfel (intergroup categorisation)
Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans)
Rosenhan (sane in insane places)
(b) Describe how the data were collected in each of these studies.
[9]
Tajfel: Participants completed matrices of rewards of points to both in-group and out-group
members. This was done after participants were told which group they belonged to
(over/under estimator and Klee/Kandinsky).
Piliavin et al.: The observers sat in the adjacent area of the subway and recorded
quantitative data – gender and race of the helper, number of people on subway, time taken
to help, etc. They also recorded comments made by the passengers during the study.
Rosenhan: 8 pseudopatients went into 12 different hospitals in the USA. They observed the
behaviour of the staff and patients in these hospitals and kept journals of their experiences.
In addition, they asked the staff when they would be presented at the staff meeting and kept
notes of the response of staff.
Candidates do not need to describe every feature of how the data were collected to obtain
full marks.
For each study:
No answer or incorrect answer.
0
Identification of point relevant to question but not related to study, or comment
from study and no point about data collection from the study.
The description may be very brief or muddled.
1
Description of point about data collection from the study. (Comment with lack of
understanding). A clear description that may lack some detail.
2
As above but with analysis (comment with comprehension) about data
collection from the study. A clear description that is in sufficient detail.
3
Max mark
9
© Cambridge International Examinations 2015
Page 11
Mark Scheme
Cambridge IGCSE – May/June 2015
Syllabus
9698
Paper
21
(c) What problems may psychologists have when they are ethnocentric in their research?
[9]
Emphasis on problem. Answers supported with named (or other) studies. Each problem does
not need a different study; can use same study.
Indicative content:
Results are not valid/objective
Cannot be generalised to other cultures/types of people
Lowers the status of psychology
Results are not useful
Language and cultural problems
May lack reliability as you may not get the same results in another country
Or any other relevant problem.
Marks per point up to a MAXIMUM of three points.
No answer or incorrect answer.
0
Identification of problem.
1
Description of problem related to ethnocentrism
OR a weak description of a problem related to ethnocentrism and applied to a
study.
2
Description of problem related to ethnocentrism and applied to the study
effectively.
3
Max mark
9
© Cambridge International Examinations 2015